Mavericks-Timberwolves Final Play

APG

Rich wrote
I'm not even sure why that's the rule -- cause people want a foul called even if it's just the hand hit. I wouldn't be surprised if the NBA watched the slo-mo, saw the hand hit, and said "that was a foul."

I highly doubt that.

What we need to realize is the NBA league office is privy to many more camera angles than we we're fortunate to see from the TV crews.

OKREF

Marion does hit the ball/hand. Is the contact on the arm after the ball is gone or not. Hard to tell.

jeremy341a

I think the passed not because they ruled he only struck the hand but due to the fact they were both straight lined. IMO the T can't see through Marion and the L can't see because the contact was on the other side of the ball.

Adam

jeremy341a wrote
I think the passed not because they ruled he only struck the hand but due to the fact they were both straight lined. IMO the T can't see through Marion and the L can't see because the contact was on the other side of the ball.

If the contact on the ball is blocked by the ball, that's a good indication that it's legal contact, IMO.

Ref16

Judging by the camera angles we were provided, I have no issue with a no-call here....I see nothing that would warrant the whistle, however I would be interested to see if a similiar play earlier in the game was also a no call, or if a foul was called.

Raymond

I'm watching the video in HD quality. At the 0:43 mark Marion's hand is actually on the ball.

jeremy341a

Adam wrote
If the contact on the ball is blocked by the ball, that's a good indication that it's legal contact, IMO.

I'm saying the contact on Love's hand and/or arm is on the right side of the ball. Looks like the ball itself is blocking the L's view.

IMO after seeing the replay I think the contact was with the hand.

Adam

jeremy341a wrote
I'm saying the contact on Love's hand and/or arm is on the right side of the ball. Looks like the ball itself is blocking the L's view.

IMO after seeing the replay I think the contact was with the hand.

Fair enough. My point was that if the ball is in the way here, the contact is likely on the hand or the ball, and thus legal.

I agree with BNR on this, though, I thought the initial contact was actually on the ball. Regardless, I think a no-call is correct here.

That said, if the hiring/assigning body wants this called due to the follow-through contact on the arm, then it should be called in their games.

jeremy341a

Adam wrote
Fair enough. My point was that if the ball is in the way here, the contact is likely on the hand or the ball, and thus legal.

I agree with BNR on this, though, I thought the initial contact was actually on the ball. Regardless, I think a no-call is correct here.

That said, if the hiring/assigning body wants this called due to the follow-through contact on the arm, then it should be called in their games.

I agree to all points.

[deleted]

Minnesota Timberwolves radio call

Raymond

AremRed wrote
Minnesota Timberwolves radio call

It's funny that radio guys think the officials are horrible for not seeing a foul, but the radio guys didn't even see that Malloy was standing right there until they saw a replay.

Their eyes are not good enough to see a 6'7" official standing next to Love in real time.

[deleted]

BadNewsRef wrote
Their eyes are not good enough to see a 6'7" official standing next to Love in real time.

I love 0:45. D'OH ED MALLOY!!!!!!!

walt

From the angles we have to look at, the Trail appears to be straight lined. I have no issue with the no call from the Trail. As for the Lead, I cannot see his head angle/sight line so I have no idea whether he was even looking at the play or was looking off the play. He shifts out but looks like he is blocked from seeing the side of the play where any alleged foul would have occurred. I know it is a last second play but they all have areas of coverage. Based on what we have seen, I am good with a no call here. Sight angles are critical as we all know.

MD Longhorn

I see no foul.

BryanV21

What I can't stand, and you see/hear it in all sports, is when announcers don't know the rule and "go off" like the official is an idiot.

[deleted]

BryanV21 wrote
What I can't stand, and you see/hear it in all sports, is when announcers don't know the rule and "go off" like the official is an idiot.

What rule didn't the announcers know in this case?

BryanV21

AremRed wrote
What rule didn't the announcers know in this case?

My post should have quoted somebody, which would clear that up. But here goes...

Some people here, and they have a point, brought up that the shooter's hand was on the ball... thus it's not a foul. I'm not saying I agree, as the video is not conclusive to me, but the way the announcers went off about the "missed call" is annoying.

And I hear announcers getting rules wrong quite a bit, yet they present it like anybody that's ever watched the sport knows.

« Previous Page